Massive day one updates for games
I always buy the physical disc versions and yet 9/10 I need to download a massive update before I can play the game

Delivery driver PDA's
When ever they ask you to sign for a parcel using one of those PDAs its completely pointless, I always just draw a line because when I try and sign it looks nothing like my signature anyway

Compare the Meerkat
Its old now, it was popular but its time to move on now

Last edited by RichardUK on Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

There's nothing wrong with paid DLC if it's just. When a dev team are able to whip up some free DLC for the fans and Microsoft or EA tell them to slap a price tag on it then yes, that should gooseberry fool off. If actual new content is produced after development of the core game has ended and requires a lot more time and effort from the dev team then I don't see why that wouldn't constitute getting paid for and thus charging for the DLC. It's like additional characters in fighting games. If they're literally built from the ground up to be added in and weren't initially planned for the main game then that should warrant a charge.

Microtransactions need to die a horrible, bloody death as soon as possible. Saying that, if they did then EA would go down with them.

Also releasing a game then having day one DLC available that should have been on the disc/card from the beginning. Especially when the "DLC" is already on the disc to begin with and you're paying for a small line of code to unlock it. That can piss right off - I owned everything on that disc the day I bought it. This should never have been allowed to happen and its one thing that really boils my blood.

The only DLC I've ever purchased are Mario Kart 8 and Assassins Creed Syndicate, but I don't particularly have a problem with added added content, so long as they aren't dilberately restricting the main game. I sort of see the logic of them from a developers point of a view - new games have always been around £40 - £50, but they cost much more to make, these days so they allow developers to make more on top of the initial purchase - I wouldn't spend money on a games new skin or outfit or in game currency, but there's lots of things that people 'waste' a couple of quid, and if people like it and are happy to pay for it that's cool with me.

I don't like the idea of loot boxes though. For one there might be an item you want that if you were allow to buy directly would be a couple of pounds, but to obtain it through loot boxes you may end up paying serious money for it. I'm very anti-gambling and that's my main problem loot boxes (where you spend actual money for a CHANCE of getting a certain item you want) are basically gambling and should be classed as such (or even if you don't see it as gambling, the same kinds of people that are susceptible to being exploited by the gambling industry are very likely also the type of people vulnerable to getting into trouble with loot boxes). Ideally I would like to see loot boxes go, but they should at least be tightly regulated.

This would be an example of when the description of the thing is much more obnoxious than the actual thing*

From what I understand "snow flake" is a pseudo-macho label for groups of people that are sensitive to offensive and wish for a more inclusive society and not to hurt peoples feelings? Which is hardly a new thing and surely the impulse behind this is good and comes from a place of empathy.

For context, I'm pro-political correctness, as it helps some maligned or vulnerable people and I'm yet to see an example of it ever doing any harm (but I acknowledge there are examples of where the execution of well intended political correctness maybe a little clumsy).

Just because a show, seems cutesy and inoffensive at surface level doesn't mean it is above ever over stepping the line (very possibly unintentionally). Or something that was acceptable in the 90s might not be acceptable by todays standard.

Just out of interest, what in friends are you referring to and who was offended and why?

When Richard says "generation snowflake" I'm guessing he means all of these people getting offended by the slightest thing that anyone else would have ignored, paid no attention to or just laughed off or joked about before.

The friends thing is ridiculous. Comedy central has been showing it for years, but as soon as it hits Netflix and they've all been watching it, it's offensive. They don't seem to get that this is a 90's sitcom where things hadn't moved forward much as compared to now with gay rights and pretty much everything else. Chandler is homophobic apparently, joeys womanizing is offending them, that's what I've read in the articles about it anyway. I mean it was the 90s, it was 20 years ago, not many sitcoms like that are going to have aged well.

The friends thing is ridiculous. Comedy central has been showing it for years, but as soon as it hits Netflix and they've all been watching it, it's offensive. They don't seem to get that this is a 90's sitcom where things hadn't moved forward much as compared to now with gay rights and pretty much everything else. Chandler is homophobic apparently, joeys womanizing is offending them, that's what I've read in the articles about it anyway. I mean it was the 90s, it was 20 years ago, not many sitcoms like that are going to have aged well.

I haven't watched Friends for sometime, so I'm perhaps not the best person to comment, but...

I accept that ideas and opinions are shaped by the society at the time, but that doesn't mean we can't retrospectively criticise or censor things that are problematic by todays standards. No matter the time it was made, surely it's detrimental to us today to show hateful or homophobic things from 90s?

I am sure I've seen episodes of Only Fools and Horses, which had words that are offensive by todays standard editted out? There's nothing wrong with modernizing or foot noting works I include everything from the homophobic stuff in Friends, to the racist stuff in To Kill a Mockingbird to the sexist stuff in Darwins Theory of Evolution (which was clearly written with a Victorian Male bias and he clearly did not consider women his equal - but rather "objects to be beloved and played with better than a dog anyway" and "man has ultimately become superior to woman”).

I accept that ideas and opinions are shaped by the society at the time, but that doesn't mean we can't retrospectively criticise or censor things that are problematic by todays standards. No matter the time it was made, surely it's detrimental to us today to show hateful or homophobic things from 90s?

Read (and understand) Fahrenheit 451 kkthx

I don't disagree with the fundamentals of the argument here but what you said in this quote is not a helpful stance. We should be preserving examples of behaviour and attitudes that are not acceptable as reminders of behaviours and attitudes that are not acceptable. You cannot learn from history if someone has taken great care to erase it.

I accept that ideas and opinions are shaped by the society at the time, but that doesn't mean we can't retrospectively criticise or censor things that are problematic by todays standards. No matter the time it was made, surely it's detrimental to us today to show hateful or homophobic things from 90s?

Read (and understand) Fahrenheit 451 kkthx

I don't disagree with the fundamentals of the argument here but what you said in this quote is not a helpful stance. We should be preserving examples of behaviour and attitudes that are not acceptable as reminders of behaviours and attitudes that are not acceptable. You cannot learn from history if someone has taken great care to erase it.

I haven't read Fahrenheit 451 yet but I think it would be the kind of thing that would be good for me, so I will add it to the list.

I must admit, I didn't look it like that, I was more coming from it from the point of view it's not good for us today to preserve out dated ideas. But yes I agree it's also not helpful to keep historical homophobia / sexism / racism hidden - it's useful to recognise and learn from it.

itt: old people mad that younger people have different opinions on things than them and criticise media that was very much from the time it was made

generation snowflake indeed

Some people associate "snowflake" with the left or younger people. I think when people use it as an insult they are describing "over sensitive, mentally fragile people who act petty or with malice when their world view is challenged" this to me could describe Trump at times.

Last edited by Cruizer on Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I'm 82 hours deep in Fire Emblem Warriors and about to start the DLC, the characters from the DLC are cool and I want to play through the new history maps.

Can't wait for the next 2 lots of DLC, this game is great and when each dlc adds 3 maps with as many stages each as the main campaign I can't complain that they're giving me more content to play through rather than bundling it up for a sequel release or not releasing it at all.

Also expansion packs are basically DLC and great games like Age of Empires/Mythology, The Witcher 3, and even the ages old Titan Quest benefit massively from the gameplay updates and influx of content they can bring.

It's my opinion that you really ought to redefine your argument.
(pretty sure that chapter based game releases like life is strange is just an exceptionally well marketed method of getting people to essentially buy dlc)

I haven't read yet but I think it would be the kind of thing that would be good for me, so I will add it to the list.

I must admit, I didn't look it like that, I was more coming from it from the point of view it's unhelpful for us today to preserve out dated ideas. But yes I agree it's not helpful to keep historical homophobia / sexism / racism hidden - it's useful to recognise and learn from it.